Scott Adams's Blog, page 336
December 2, 2012
The Ultimate To-Do List
I have a complicated life, mostly by choice. I probably have a hundred items on my mental to-do list if you count all household, personal, and business tasks. There are so many tasks on my list that I literally don't have time to maintain the list itself.
On any given day I might have a dozen items that I need to remember to put on a shopping list, probably twenty minor home repairs that need attention, a dozen phone calls, several tax-related questions for my accountant, several questions for my attorney on the five projects he's working on, and about twenty-five files/piles on my desk that all relate to tasks I need to complete. And none of that counts my everyday tasks of writing blog posts, making comics, and approving licensed products. Nor does it count the holiday crush and the scheduled events I need to prepare for, and on and on.
I'm sure most of you have complicated lives too. So I wonder if anyone has created the ultimate to-do list system.
The biggest problem with a list, especially once it gets to a dozen items or more, is that a list is one-dimensional. Ideally, I want my list sometimes organized by priority, but other times by location. For example, my to-do list app should sense my speed and motion and sort to the top of the list any tasks that involve phone calls, under the theory that I'm probably driving my car and I can make some calls on the way.
Other times I want my to-do list sorted by location. If I'm driving past the store, the items I need from the store should sort to the top of the list automatically. That function already exists in at least one "notes" app I've seen.
At other times I want my list to have the simplest and quickest items on top because I might have a spare five minutes and want to knock off a few items.
Time-of-day matters too. For the first few hours of every day I don't want to focus on anything but creative work. After dinner, I'm more in a frame of mind to handle boring administrative stuff. I want my to-do app to know my personal preferences for managing my energy level.
I also want my app to give me some satisfying feedback for crossing off an item on the list. Crossing off items is strange fun.
At the very top of my wish list for a to-do app is speed. It's not unusual for me to think of five things to add to my list on the walk from the kitchen to the garage, but it would take nearly a minute to get my phone out and enter five items. I rarely pause for a full minute to do anything, so instead I just feel frustrated in the knowledge that I will forget two of the five items on the list.
I also want to attach long notes to any item on my to-do list. And I want my to-do list to tie into my calendar. And I want to share my to-do list with my wife in case our lists overlap or she is going to a store that has something on my list.
You can see the problem here. It would take so long to manage a list with so many features and options that the list itself would become impractical. For every item on my list I need to know. . .
1. How important is it?
2. How long to complete?
3. Where is it done?
4. What order do things have to be done?
5. Who else might have the same task?
6. Is it done by phone, Skype, email, text, in person, or manually?
7. What time of day do I prefer doing it?
8. Does it combine with other tasks at the same time?
9. Is it complicated or simple?
10. Is it work-related or personal?
I've tried several popular apps. None have risen to the level of a plain scrap of paper. So I'm wondering two things:
1. How long is your typical to-do list?
2. What is your system for managing it?
On any given day I might have a dozen items that I need to remember to put on a shopping list, probably twenty minor home repairs that need attention, a dozen phone calls, several tax-related questions for my accountant, several questions for my attorney on the five projects he's working on, and about twenty-five files/piles on my desk that all relate to tasks I need to complete. And none of that counts my everyday tasks of writing blog posts, making comics, and approving licensed products. Nor does it count the holiday crush and the scheduled events I need to prepare for, and on and on.
I'm sure most of you have complicated lives too. So I wonder if anyone has created the ultimate to-do list system.
The biggest problem with a list, especially once it gets to a dozen items or more, is that a list is one-dimensional. Ideally, I want my list sometimes organized by priority, but other times by location. For example, my to-do list app should sense my speed and motion and sort to the top of the list any tasks that involve phone calls, under the theory that I'm probably driving my car and I can make some calls on the way.
Other times I want my to-do list sorted by location. If I'm driving past the store, the items I need from the store should sort to the top of the list automatically. That function already exists in at least one "notes" app I've seen.
At other times I want my list to have the simplest and quickest items on top because I might have a spare five minutes and want to knock off a few items.
Time-of-day matters too. For the first few hours of every day I don't want to focus on anything but creative work. After dinner, I'm more in a frame of mind to handle boring administrative stuff. I want my to-do app to know my personal preferences for managing my energy level.
I also want my app to give me some satisfying feedback for crossing off an item on the list. Crossing off items is strange fun.
At the very top of my wish list for a to-do app is speed. It's not unusual for me to think of five things to add to my list on the walk from the kitchen to the garage, but it would take nearly a minute to get my phone out and enter five items. I rarely pause for a full minute to do anything, so instead I just feel frustrated in the knowledge that I will forget two of the five items on the list.
I also want to attach long notes to any item on my to-do list. And I want my to-do list to tie into my calendar. And I want to share my to-do list with my wife in case our lists overlap or she is going to a store that has something on my list.
You can see the problem here. It would take so long to manage a list with so many features and options that the list itself would become impractical. For every item on my list I need to know. . .
1. How important is it?
2. How long to complete?
3. Where is it done?
4. What order do things have to be done?
5. Who else might have the same task?
6. Is it done by phone, Skype, email, text, in person, or manually?
7. What time of day do I prefer doing it?
8. Does it combine with other tasks at the same time?
9. Is it complicated or simple?
10. Is it work-related or personal?
I've tried several popular apps. None have risen to the level of a plain scrap of paper. So I'm wondering two things:
1. How long is your typical to-do list?
2. What is your system for managing it?
November 27, 2012
The Destination of Democracy
Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy or opinion. It is not intended to change anyone's beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Destination of Democracy
In a democracy, the job of government is to serve the public, right? That's the idea anyway. And indeed, despite all the bickering and inefficiencies of government, most of our governments' actions seem intended for the public good. But I think a deeper truth is lurking out of sight. I think the long term trajectory for any democracy is toward a military dictatorship. By my calculation, we're about halfway there.
The halfway point between a civilian-led military and a military dictatorship would have these key markers:
1. The military would appear oversized despite budget problems. (check)
2. Top generals would have lavish lifestyles. (check)
3. The country would be in a state of continuous serial warfare. (check)
4. Generals would get rich upon retirement. (check)
5. Civilian leadership in military matters would be mostly cosmetic. (check)
Realistically, I can't imagine a situation in the United States in which a president would go against the advice of top generals on any important military decision. A president always needs political cover in case things go wrong. Essentially, the military decides and the president pretends it was his decision. That's what passes as a civilian-led military.
On a more basic level, the military has the big guns. If a civilian government pisses off the military, it could end up a smoking pile of embers. We're nowhere near the point at which the military might turn on the government in the United States, but that's because top generals are getting most of what they want. That's what keeps us halfway between a civilian-led government and a military dictatorship. But what sort of situation might cause the military to grab full control?
The minimum requirement for a military takeover is that some future war produces a celebrity general, such as General Patreaus, and that general goes on to become President. Obviously General Patreaus is out of the running for president, but every war creates new celebrity generals. If Iran goes ugly in the next year, we'll all be reading about the awesomeness of whatever general leads the military action.
Once a general gets elected to the presidency he can use his military connections to consolidate power. He would also have access to vast private wealth via the defense companies that would happily do his bidding in return for contracts. That's a lot of money available to buy influence.
A general can serve as president for eight years, then step aside to let a puppet take over for another eight years, Putin-style. It might take a full generation before people realize democracy has become window dressing.
Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. One assumes he knew what he was talking about.
Just to be clear, I believe 99.9% of military personnel are true patriots who support democracy and are willing to risk their lives to defend it. My scenario only requires a few bad generals. And as we know, generals are sometimes flawed. It's also a truism that power corrupts. So the seeds are all in place. I'm just connecting the dots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Destination of Democracy
In a democracy, the job of government is to serve the public, right? That's the idea anyway. And indeed, despite all the bickering and inefficiencies of government, most of our governments' actions seem intended for the public good. But I think a deeper truth is lurking out of sight. I think the long term trajectory for any democracy is toward a military dictatorship. By my calculation, we're about halfway there.
The halfway point between a civilian-led military and a military dictatorship would have these key markers:
1. The military would appear oversized despite budget problems. (check)
2. Top generals would have lavish lifestyles. (check)
3. The country would be in a state of continuous serial warfare. (check)
4. Generals would get rich upon retirement. (check)
5. Civilian leadership in military matters would be mostly cosmetic. (check)
Realistically, I can't imagine a situation in the United States in which a president would go against the advice of top generals on any important military decision. A president always needs political cover in case things go wrong. Essentially, the military decides and the president pretends it was his decision. That's what passes as a civilian-led military.
On a more basic level, the military has the big guns. If a civilian government pisses off the military, it could end up a smoking pile of embers. We're nowhere near the point at which the military might turn on the government in the United States, but that's because top generals are getting most of what they want. That's what keeps us halfway between a civilian-led government and a military dictatorship. But what sort of situation might cause the military to grab full control?
The minimum requirement for a military takeover is that some future war produces a celebrity general, such as General Patreaus, and that general goes on to become President. Obviously General Patreaus is out of the running for president, but every war creates new celebrity generals. If Iran goes ugly in the next year, we'll all be reading about the awesomeness of whatever general leads the military action.
Once a general gets elected to the presidency he can use his military connections to consolidate power. He would also have access to vast private wealth via the defense companies that would happily do his bidding in return for contracts. That's a lot of money available to buy influence.
A general can serve as president for eight years, then step aside to let a puppet take over for another eight years, Putin-style. It might take a full generation before people realize democracy has become window dressing.
Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. One assumes he knew what he was talking about.
Just to be clear, I believe 99.9% of military personnel are true patriots who support democracy and are willing to risk their lives to defend it. My scenario only requires a few bad generals. And as we know, generals are sometimes flawed. It's also a truism that power corrupts. So the seeds are all in place. I'm just connecting the dots.
November 25, 2012
Wealth Creators versus Wealth Consumers
On one side of the class war you have the folks who think the rich obtained their wealth by stealing from the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the rich accuse the poor and the middle class of supporting tax policies designed to take from the rich and give to the poor. Is this worldview - the view that others are trying to steal your stuff - an example of paranoia or economics or jealousy?
Obviously some rich people really are thieves, practicing insider trading, bribery, and other unsavory practices. And some poor people really are looking for a free ride. But I think we can agree that the bad apples in every wealth class are the exceptions.
I've met a lot of rich people, and as far as I can tell, they aren't addicted to money, power, or even prestige. I say that for the same reason you don't crave a ham sandwich at the moment you finish eating one. Once the rich become rich, their motives evolve.
My hypothesis is that the rich are often addicted to hard work itself. Once that hard work produces all that a person needs for personal use, the impulse for hard work doesn't go away. What happens instead is that the goal changes from becoming richer - which has a decreasing marginal benefit - to making the world a better place. People who are genetically inclined toward industrious behavior will keep working hard long after their persona needs have been met. People don't change their basic nature just because their bank accounts expand. But people do routinely change their rationalizations, i.e. their stated goals.
If you travelled back in time and asked the 25-year old me why I worked hard, I would have said something about my dreams of someday becoming rich. If you ask me today why I work hard, I'll say something about making the world a better place. That explanation might even sound reasonable, given that my comics and my side ventures are all designed to improve the world in small ways. But on some level I know all of my reasons are rationalizations. The core truth is that I'm genetically wired for hard work. It's simply my nature. I'm happier when I'm being productive.
I wonder if instead of dividing the world into poor, middle-class, and rich, we'd be better off sorting the world into people who create more wealth than they consume and people who consume more than they create. There might be a lot of power in that model. Let me explain why.
When we sort the public into wealth classes, we are lured into endless debates on who deserves what and who is stealing from whom. That can't lead to anything good. But imagine instead we focused on dividing people into net creators of wealth versus net consumers. The creators and consumers of wealth would be found in each wealth class. The goal would be to have more creators and fewer net consumers of wealth.
That might sound a lot like today's model, and perhaps it overlaps 90%. Obviously everyone wants a world with more creators of wealth and fewer net consumers of wealth. But I think this small mental change in how we sort people might change behavior.
By analogy, I remember seeing a study that said people use less energy at home when everyone in a neighborhood can see their neighbors' energy bills. As soon as you know you are being compared to your peers, you start turning off lights when you leave the room. Likewise, I think a focus on sorting people into wealth creators versus wealth consumers would change people's behaviors for the better.
Let me give you some examples of how this can make a difference. Suppose you are poor and a net consumer of wealth. Society has taught you to blame rich people for sending jobs overseas, blame the government for not doing enough, and blame your bad luck. That's not a productive view. Now let's say society agrees to define a person who is in school, or in any sort of training course, as automatically part of the creator class. That gives a poor person a clear path to upward mobility. Simply sign up for school or government-sponsored training and instantly become part of the creator class.
If you're a fat cat wealthy person who stopped producing anything of value long ago, how would you feel to be in the category of "Net Consumer of Wealth"? I think it would cause you to start investing your idle cash in something that would improve your social standing and make you a creator of wealth. To make things easier, let's assume we label as a wealth creator anyone who invests in a start-up, even if the start-up does not succeed.
What I'm suggesting might seem like a subtle or even trivial shift in how we look at the world. But that sort of shift can be huge in terms of how it changes behavior. Class warfare strikes me as a dangerous worldview. It encourages a win-lose approach to government policy in order to pursue the elusive unicorn of "fairness." A more productive way to view the world is in terms of net creators and net consumers of wealth, at least so long as society makes it possible for any net consumer to become a net creator by going to school, training for a job, or investing in start-ups. For the middle class, it might simply mean spending less than they earn. I think this approach gets you to a healthy economy faster than a class war.
I know some of you will reject this idea because there's no clean way to know who is a net consumer of wealth and who is a net creator. But I think common sense gets you close enough.
Obviously some rich people really are thieves, practicing insider trading, bribery, and other unsavory practices. And some poor people really are looking for a free ride. But I think we can agree that the bad apples in every wealth class are the exceptions.
I've met a lot of rich people, and as far as I can tell, they aren't addicted to money, power, or even prestige. I say that for the same reason you don't crave a ham sandwich at the moment you finish eating one. Once the rich become rich, their motives evolve.
My hypothesis is that the rich are often addicted to hard work itself. Once that hard work produces all that a person needs for personal use, the impulse for hard work doesn't go away. What happens instead is that the goal changes from becoming richer - which has a decreasing marginal benefit - to making the world a better place. People who are genetically inclined toward industrious behavior will keep working hard long after their persona needs have been met. People don't change their basic nature just because their bank accounts expand. But people do routinely change their rationalizations, i.e. their stated goals.
If you travelled back in time and asked the 25-year old me why I worked hard, I would have said something about my dreams of someday becoming rich. If you ask me today why I work hard, I'll say something about making the world a better place. That explanation might even sound reasonable, given that my comics and my side ventures are all designed to improve the world in small ways. But on some level I know all of my reasons are rationalizations. The core truth is that I'm genetically wired for hard work. It's simply my nature. I'm happier when I'm being productive.
I wonder if instead of dividing the world into poor, middle-class, and rich, we'd be better off sorting the world into people who create more wealth than they consume and people who consume more than they create. There might be a lot of power in that model. Let me explain why.
When we sort the public into wealth classes, we are lured into endless debates on who deserves what and who is stealing from whom. That can't lead to anything good. But imagine instead we focused on dividing people into net creators of wealth versus net consumers. The creators and consumers of wealth would be found in each wealth class. The goal would be to have more creators and fewer net consumers of wealth.
That might sound a lot like today's model, and perhaps it overlaps 90%. Obviously everyone wants a world with more creators of wealth and fewer net consumers of wealth. But I think this small mental change in how we sort people might change behavior.
By analogy, I remember seeing a study that said people use less energy at home when everyone in a neighborhood can see their neighbors' energy bills. As soon as you know you are being compared to your peers, you start turning off lights when you leave the room. Likewise, I think a focus on sorting people into wealth creators versus wealth consumers would change people's behaviors for the better.
Let me give you some examples of how this can make a difference. Suppose you are poor and a net consumer of wealth. Society has taught you to blame rich people for sending jobs overseas, blame the government for not doing enough, and blame your bad luck. That's not a productive view. Now let's say society agrees to define a person who is in school, or in any sort of training course, as automatically part of the creator class. That gives a poor person a clear path to upward mobility. Simply sign up for school or government-sponsored training and instantly become part of the creator class.
If you're a fat cat wealthy person who stopped producing anything of value long ago, how would you feel to be in the category of "Net Consumer of Wealth"? I think it would cause you to start investing your idle cash in something that would improve your social standing and make you a creator of wealth. To make things easier, let's assume we label as a wealth creator anyone who invests in a start-up, even if the start-up does not succeed.
What I'm suggesting might seem like a subtle or even trivial shift in how we look at the world. But that sort of shift can be huge in terms of how it changes behavior. Class warfare strikes me as a dangerous worldview. It encourages a win-lose approach to government policy in order to pursue the elusive unicorn of "fairness." A more productive way to view the world is in terms of net creators and net consumers of wealth, at least so long as society makes it possible for any net consumer to become a net creator by going to school, training for a job, or investing in start-ups. For the middle class, it might simply mean spending less than they earn. I think this approach gets you to a healthy economy faster than a class war.
I know some of you will reject this idea because there's no clean way to know who is a net consumer of wealth and who is a net creator. But I think common sense gets you close enough.
November 20, 2012
Looks like a Duck. . .
When Lance Armstrong's ex-teammate first accused him of using performance enhancing drugs, did you believe the accusation right away? I did. And when we learned that doping was common practice among top cyclists, did that surprise you? It didn't surprise me. It was exactly what I expected. My bullshit filter worked perfectly in that case. Or maybe it was just my economics training. Whenever the following three conditions are met, you always have rampant cheating:
1. Cheating is easy
2. The payoff is huge.
3. The odds of getting caught are low
Eventually you'll see the same sort of doping scandal in tennis. It's obvious that many of the top players - especially the women - are up to something. You can tell by the sudden changes in body shape and performance. It's especially obvious when you see players having their best performances after the age of thirty.
This brings me to hedge funds. Every now and then - such as this week - a story trickles out that a hedge fund manager has been accused of illegal insider trading. Prior to the accusations, we tend to take hedge funds at their word that they have secret algorithms and they do penetrating research to achieve their market-beating returns.
Allow me to get out in front with both tennis and hedge funds. My bullshit filter says tennis is filled with juiced-up cheaters, and the majority of hedge funds are criminal enterprises hiding behind "secret" algorithms.
Just to be clear, I don't think Roger Federer is abusing any substances. His body shows no signs of it. I think Andy Roddick is clean too, or else he would still be playing. I would put the juicing rate at somewhere near 50% for the top thirty players.
I'm sure some hedge funds are legitimate too. The honest ones are easy to spot; most of them aren't beating the market averages. Here again I would put the rate of cheating, including insider trading, at about 50%. I have no data to support that estimate; I'm just looking at the needle on my bullshit meter. Someday we'll look back and laugh at the fact we ever believed hedge funds used secret algorithms.
What does your bullshit meter tell you about tennis and hedge funds? What percentage do you believe are cheaters?
1. Cheating is easy
2. The payoff is huge.
3. The odds of getting caught are low
Eventually you'll see the same sort of doping scandal in tennis. It's obvious that many of the top players - especially the women - are up to something. You can tell by the sudden changes in body shape and performance. It's especially obvious when you see players having their best performances after the age of thirty.
This brings me to hedge funds. Every now and then - such as this week - a story trickles out that a hedge fund manager has been accused of illegal insider trading. Prior to the accusations, we tend to take hedge funds at their word that they have secret algorithms and they do penetrating research to achieve their market-beating returns.
Allow me to get out in front with both tennis and hedge funds. My bullshit filter says tennis is filled with juiced-up cheaters, and the majority of hedge funds are criminal enterprises hiding behind "secret" algorithms.
Just to be clear, I don't think Roger Federer is abusing any substances. His body shows no signs of it. I think Andy Roddick is clean too, or else he would still be playing. I would put the juicing rate at somewhere near 50% for the top thirty players.
I'm sure some hedge funds are legitimate too. The honest ones are easy to spot; most of them aren't beating the market averages. Here again I would put the rate of cheating, including insider trading, at about 50%. I have no data to support that estimate; I'm just looking at the needle on my bullshit meter. Someday we'll look back and laugh at the fact we ever believed hedge funds used secret algorithms.
What does your bullshit meter tell you about tennis and hedge funds? What percentage do you believe are cheaters?
November 18, 2012
The Go-Back Prevention Memory Trick
Before I head to the gym I need to remember five items: my wallet, phone, car key, iPod, and lifting gloves. Historically, my success rate in remembering all five items on the first try was approximately zero. I always ended up going back into the house to grab a forgotten item or two. Often I would get all the way to the gym before realizing I didn't have my iPod or gloves. It was exasperating.
Apparently, remembering five items is too much for my tiny, overextended brain. I spend much of my day in a thick creative fog, watching idea fragments float past my consciousness while I try to assemble them like a puzzle. I can go so deeply into my imagination that I sometimes snap out of it in a public place, such as the mall, and literally check to see if I'm wearing pants. So remembering five different items for the gym is far beyond my practical abilities.
I considered making a list of my five necessary gym items, but I knew a list wouldn't work for me. I find that lists only work when I first make them. After a week, I stop seeing the list. It's as if I need a second list that reminds me to look at my first list. But I did come up with a solution that has worked for the past six months.
My solution is the number five itself. I simply remember that for a trip to the gym I must bring five items. If I only count four items, I know I'm missing one. At that point I just run through the list in my head and I know what else I need. It works like a charm.
The other day I was considering blogging about this little memory trick when I got an email from my brother. We're not twins, but we think so similarly that it is freaky. My brother's email asked what method I use to remember the items I need to buy at the grocery store. My brother's solution is to remember the number of items. That's enough to ensure he comes home with everything he intended to buy. He and I designed the same memory trick at about the same time. Weird.
I'm considering assigning a number to my other standard trips as well. For example, any outdoorsy trips that involve sun also require my hat, sunscreen, and sun glasses. That's three items on top of my wallet, phone, and car keys. Outdoor trips are a six.
I'm assuming your lives are equally complicated. It's a challenge to get your spouse and your kids in the car without one of you making a go-back trip to the house for a forgotten item. As a fix, what if you assigned each family member a number before everyone heads to the car? For example, maybe one kid always needs an iPod, charger, and headphones. That's three items. Your spouse might need sunglasses, phone, purse, and digital camera. That's four. As everyone is getting ready to leave, you make sure everyone knows their number: "Timmy, you're a three. Sally, you're a four."
Try it. You'll be amazed how well it works.
Apparently, remembering five items is too much for my tiny, overextended brain. I spend much of my day in a thick creative fog, watching idea fragments float past my consciousness while I try to assemble them like a puzzle. I can go so deeply into my imagination that I sometimes snap out of it in a public place, such as the mall, and literally check to see if I'm wearing pants. So remembering five different items for the gym is far beyond my practical abilities.
I considered making a list of my five necessary gym items, but I knew a list wouldn't work for me. I find that lists only work when I first make them. After a week, I stop seeing the list. It's as if I need a second list that reminds me to look at my first list. But I did come up with a solution that has worked for the past six months.
My solution is the number five itself. I simply remember that for a trip to the gym I must bring five items. If I only count four items, I know I'm missing one. At that point I just run through the list in my head and I know what else I need. It works like a charm.
The other day I was considering blogging about this little memory trick when I got an email from my brother. We're not twins, but we think so similarly that it is freaky. My brother's email asked what method I use to remember the items I need to buy at the grocery store. My brother's solution is to remember the number of items. That's enough to ensure he comes home with everything he intended to buy. He and I designed the same memory trick at about the same time. Weird.
I'm considering assigning a number to my other standard trips as well. For example, any outdoorsy trips that involve sun also require my hat, sunscreen, and sun glasses. That's three items on top of my wallet, phone, and car keys. Outdoor trips are a six.
I'm assuming your lives are equally complicated. It's a challenge to get your spouse and your kids in the car without one of you making a go-back trip to the house for a forgotten item. As a fix, what if you assigned each family member a number before everyone heads to the car? For example, maybe one kid always needs an iPod, charger, and headphones. That's three items. Your spouse might need sunglasses, phone, purse, and digital camera. That's four. As everyone is getting ready to leave, you make sure everyone knows their number: "Timmy, you're a three. Sally, you're a four."
Try it. You'll be amazed how well it works.
November 15, 2012
Predicting Israel
In my book
The Religion War
, written ten years ago, I predicted a future in which terrorists could destroy anything above ground whenever they wanted. They simply used inexpensive drones with electronics no more sophisticated than an Android app.
Fast-forward to today, Iran is sending drones to Hezbollah, and Hezbollah has training camps right next to Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles. Meanwhile, Hamas has its own drone production facility, or did, until Israel found it. One presumes Hamas will build more. How long will it be before Israel is facing suicide drones that only cost its enemies $100 apiece, fit in the trunk of a car, and can guide themselves to within 20 feet of any target? I'd say five years.
So what happens when the drone attacks start happening in volume? Let's game this out. My assumption is that the coming inevitable wave of hobby-sized suicide drones will be unstoppable because they will fly low to their target and be so numerous that no defense will be effective. I predict it will be too dangerous to live above ground in Israel within ten years unless the trend is reversed. But what could stop the trend?
Surely the terrorists won't give up. Surely Iran and others will keep the terrorists well-supplied. Surely Israel can't conquer every pocket of terrorism in the region. And surely Israel won't surrender and walk away.
It's your turn to be a futurist. Please describe in the comments any scenario you can imagine in which Israeli cities are still habitable in ten years. And be sure to give your best guess on the odds of your scenario playing out.
Fast-forward to today, Iran is sending drones to Hezbollah, and Hezbollah has training camps right next to Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles. Meanwhile, Hamas has its own drone production facility, or did, until Israel found it. One presumes Hamas will build more. How long will it be before Israel is facing suicide drones that only cost its enemies $100 apiece, fit in the trunk of a car, and can guide themselves to within 20 feet of any target? I'd say five years.
So what happens when the drone attacks start happening in volume? Let's game this out. My assumption is that the coming inevitable wave of hobby-sized suicide drones will be unstoppable because they will fly low to their target and be so numerous that no defense will be effective. I predict it will be too dangerous to live above ground in Israel within ten years unless the trend is reversed. But what could stop the trend?
Surely the terrorists won't give up. Surely Iran and others will keep the terrorists well-supplied. Surely Israel can't conquer every pocket of terrorism in the region. And surely Israel won't surrender and walk away.
It's your turn to be a futurist. Please describe in the comments any scenario you can imagine in which Israeli cities are still habitable in ten years. And be sure to give your best guess on the odds of your scenario playing out.
November 14, 2012
The Shirtless FBI Guy
Perhaps you read the so-called "news" in the United States that an obsessed FBI agent sent a photo of himself, shirtless, to a married woman who is connected to the story of General Patreus and his extra-marital affair. That's what I call a story! Sex, power, wow!
Days pass. Now a lawyer for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association explains that the photo was in a larger context of the two families who have been social friends for years sending joke photos to each other on a regular basis. The picture in question showed the agent humorously standing between two firing-range dummies that I assume were also shirtless.
Boring!!!!
I hate it when context ruins a good news story.
But wait, there's still hope. Do you trust a lawyer whose job description involves manipulating the truth? Or do you trust the free press whose mission is to bring you accurate and useful news?
I'm going with the lawyer on this one.
But I give the free press credit for turning a bunch of nothing into two interesting stories. The first story was the salacious tale of an obsessed stalker in the FBI. The second story was the correction in which the FBI agent is revealed to be just a family man with a good sense of humor. I'd like to be on that FBI agent's joke list. The firing-range picture actually sounds funny.
Days pass. Now a lawyer for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association explains that the photo was in a larger context of the two families who have been social friends for years sending joke photos to each other on a regular basis. The picture in question showed the agent humorously standing between two firing-range dummies that I assume were also shirtless.
Boring!!!!
I hate it when context ruins a good news story.
But wait, there's still hope. Do you trust a lawyer whose job description involves manipulating the truth? Or do you trust the free press whose mission is to bring you accurate and useful news?
I'm going with the lawyer on this one.
But I give the free press credit for turning a bunch of nothing into two interesting stories. The first story was the salacious tale of an obsessed stalker in the FBI. The second story was the correction in which the FBI agent is revealed to be just a family man with a good sense of humor. I'd like to be on that FBI agent's joke list. The firing-range picture actually sounds funny.
November 13, 2012
Guilty by Headline
I've noticed that whenever the media wants to demonize a public figure, they follow a specific pattern:
1. Quote the public figure out of context to make him look more ridiculous than usual.
2. When the public figure tries to put the quote back in context, the headlines the next day will say, "[Public Figure] Doubles Down"
3. When the public figure tries to clarify a hasty remark, or one taken out of context, the headline is "[Public Figure] Backpedals on Earlier Remarks."
Backpedaling and doubling down are words the media use to signal their opinion that the figure in question is an unscrupulous weasel. It also helps distract from the fact that the media often invents news by removing context. Doubling down sounds a lot better than the more accurate alternative: "Public Figure Correctly Points Out that We Manufactured News by Removing Context."
If you Google "doubles down" "Romney" you will discover that Romney allegedly doubled down on. . .
1. Criticism of embassy attacks
2. The 47% controversy
3. False Jeep claims
4. Defunding National Public Radio
5. Obama's "Apology Tour"
6. Vouchercare
7. Russia as geopolitical adversary
8. "extreme" immigration positions
Do a similar search for "doubles down" and "Obama" and you find that the President doubled down on. . .
1. History
2. Tax hikes
3. About not apologizing
4. On "oddly incoherent critique of Romney"
5. Bain Capital attacks
6. Romney's op-ed about automaker support
7. Biden's claim that middle class ‘buried'
8. Big government
Meanwhile, Romney "backpedalled" on. . .
1. 47% comment
2. Deportations
3. FEMA
4. Abortion
And President Obama "backpedalled" on. . .
1. Economy being fine
2. "above my pay grade" comment
3. Libya attacks
4. Keystone pipeline
5. Private sector remarks
6. Sequestration
7. Ahmadinijad "elected" remark
8. Gay marriage
You will not be surprised to learn that liberal media sites more often accused Romney of back pedaling and doubling down while conservative media sites more often say the same about President Obama.
My advice is that whenever you see backpedalling or doubling down in an alleged news story, stop reading immediately. The writer and the editor for that piece are trying to manipulate you into a belief that would not necessarily be supported by the facts within their proper context.
1. Quote the public figure out of context to make him look more ridiculous than usual.
2. When the public figure tries to put the quote back in context, the headlines the next day will say, "[Public Figure] Doubles Down"
3. When the public figure tries to clarify a hasty remark, or one taken out of context, the headline is "[Public Figure] Backpedals on Earlier Remarks."
Backpedaling and doubling down are words the media use to signal their opinion that the figure in question is an unscrupulous weasel. It also helps distract from the fact that the media often invents news by removing context. Doubling down sounds a lot better than the more accurate alternative: "Public Figure Correctly Points Out that We Manufactured News by Removing Context."
If you Google "doubles down" "Romney" you will discover that Romney allegedly doubled down on. . .
1. Criticism of embassy attacks
2. The 47% controversy
3. False Jeep claims
4. Defunding National Public Radio
5. Obama's "Apology Tour"
6. Vouchercare
7. Russia as geopolitical adversary
8. "extreme" immigration positions
Do a similar search for "doubles down" and "Obama" and you find that the President doubled down on. . .
1. History
2. Tax hikes
3. About not apologizing
4. On "oddly incoherent critique of Romney"
5. Bain Capital attacks
6. Romney's op-ed about automaker support
7. Biden's claim that middle class ‘buried'
8. Big government
Meanwhile, Romney "backpedalled" on. . .
1. 47% comment
2. Deportations
3. FEMA
4. Abortion
And President Obama "backpedalled" on. . .
1. Economy being fine
2. "above my pay grade" comment
3. Libya attacks
4. Keystone pipeline
5. Private sector remarks
6. Sequestration
7. Ahmadinijad "elected" remark
8. Gay marriage
You will not be surprised to learn that liberal media sites more often accused Romney of back pedaling and doubling down while conservative media sites more often say the same about President Obama.
My advice is that whenever you see backpedalling or doubling down in an alleged news story, stop reading immediately. The writer and the editor for that piece are trying to manipulate you into a belief that would not necessarily be supported by the facts within their proper context.
November 11, 2012
Freedom Metric
Every society sorts human behavior into right and wrong. The problem with this model is that people don't always agree on what is wrong. To solve the occasional ambiguity over right and wrong, suppose society organized around the idea that all laws and ethical standards should be designed to maximize cumulative human freedom. Would the world end up in a better place by focusing on freedom instead of what is "right"?
Our definition of freedom would have to account for the fact that a healthy person with money has more freedom than someone who is sick and poor. A legitimate pursuit of freedom would include attention to the economy, education, healthcare, and the things we value most. And we'd still maintain most laws so citizens could enjoy the freedom of living without fear. Given all the things that would be the same, where would a focus on freedom make a difference?
Consider the case of David Petraeus and his admitted affair with his biographer. Under the standard model of right-and-wrong, his actions were clearly wrong and he had no choice but to resign his job as head of the CIA. But what if we apply the freedom metric instead? As a citizen, I don't want to lose the option of having Petraeus as the head of the CIA. Freedom-wise, the citizens of the United States came out behind when Petraeus resigned. We lost an option.
In the Petraeus situation, there are some practical issues to consider. You don't want the head of the CIA to be susceptible to blackmail. But keep in mind that a leader is only susceptible to that sort of blackmail when society limits his freedom to have sex with willing partners. A focus on freedom would get you closer to a French situation in which a leader's alleged affair would be met with shrugs.
The freedom metric would create a libertarian-looking world where no one cares about victimless crimes. That part is obvious. What is less obvious is how we'd treat tax policy under a freedom-focused world. Wouldn't a freedom-focused world always soak the rich on taxes?
An extra dollar to a billionaire will have no impact on his freedom. But an extra dollar to a poor person gives him the option of eating. If freedom is the goal, you want to transfer wealth away from the rich until you reach the point where transferring one more dollar would decrease the world's total supply of freedom. It could look a lot like communism if you do it wrong, and we know that wouldn't work out.
The hard part of maximizing freedom is preserving capitalist incentives. If people get all the freedom they need without working, why would they ever work? The system would fall apart. To increase the world's freedom, we need a system in which the rich transfer wealth to the poor without ruining the motivation of the people on the receiving end. Luckily for you, I have just the idea for that.
Suppose the rich are taxed not on income but on the risk class of their assets? In other words, a billionaire would be taxed extra for keeping money sitting around in treasury bills, or third homes, or cash-like investments. Only the assets that are actively devoted to business enterprises would be tax-free.
With that sort of system, billionaires would invest their boring assets in riskier ways that would stimulate the economy and create jobs. If the risky investments don't work out, the billionaire's lifestyle barely changes, but in the meantime it creates a lot of jobs. The net outcome of such a system is more freedom while preserving capitalist incentives. The billionaire gives up the freedom to keep boring assets sidelined and untaxed, but there's no real impact on the billionaire's day-to-day freedom. The world comes out ahead, freedom-wise.
Abortion would be a tricky issue if you remove right and wrong from the equation and focus on freedom instead. Society would need to compare the freedom that a woman would sacrifice by having an unwanted child, and the impact that would have on others as well, versus the potential freedom of the fetus. That sidesteps the question of when life begins. The starting point of life only matters if you are talking about the rights of the living. If you're talking about potential for freedom, a fetus of any age has it. Personally, I'm pro-choice, for purely practical reasons. If freedom were my top priority, would my opinion on abortion rights change?
A focus on freedom will skewer the sacred cows on both sides of the aisle. Conservatives might have to live with higher taxes on the rich, and liberals might lose their strongest argument for abortion rights.
How committed are we to this freedom thing?
Our definition of freedom would have to account for the fact that a healthy person with money has more freedom than someone who is sick and poor. A legitimate pursuit of freedom would include attention to the economy, education, healthcare, and the things we value most. And we'd still maintain most laws so citizens could enjoy the freedom of living without fear. Given all the things that would be the same, where would a focus on freedom make a difference?
Consider the case of David Petraeus and his admitted affair with his biographer. Under the standard model of right-and-wrong, his actions were clearly wrong and he had no choice but to resign his job as head of the CIA. But what if we apply the freedom metric instead? As a citizen, I don't want to lose the option of having Petraeus as the head of the CIA. Freedom-wise, the citizens of the United States came out behind when Petraeus resigned. We lost an option.
In the Petraeus situation, there are some practical issues to consider. You don't want the head of the CIA to be susceptible to blackmail. But keep in mind that a leader is only susceptible to that sort of blackmail when society limits his freedom to have sex with willing partners. A focus on freedom would get you closer to a French situation in which a leader's alleged affair would be met with shrugs.
The freedom metric would create a libertarian-looking world where no one cares about victimless crimes. That part is obvious. What is less obvious is how we'd treat tax policy under a freedom-focused world. Wouldn't a freedom-focused world always soak the rich on taxes?
An extra dollar to a billionaire will have no impact on his freedom. But an extra dollar to a poor person gives him the option of eating. If freedom is the goal, you want to transfer wealth away from the rich until you reach the point where transferring one more dollar would decrease the world's total supply of freedom. It could look a lot like communism if you do it wrong, and we know that wouldn't work out.
The hard part of maximizing freedom is preserving capitalist incentives. If people get all the freedom they need without working, why would they ever work? The system would fall apart. To increase the world's freedom, we need a system in which the rich transfer wealth to the poor without ruining the motivation of the people on the receiving end. Luckily for you, I have just the idea for that.
Suppose the rich are taxed not on income but on the risk class of their assets? In other words, a billionaire would be taxed extra for keeping money sitting around in treasury bills, or third homes, or cash-like investments. Only the assets that are actively devoted to business enterprises would be tax-free.
With that sort of system, billionaires would invest their boring assets in riskier ways that would stimulate the economy and create jobs. If the risky investments don't work out, the billionaire's lifestyle barely changes, but in the meantime it creates a lot of jobs. The net outcome of such a system is more freedom while preserving capitalist incentives. The billionaire gives up the freedom to keep boring assets sidelined and untaxed, but there's no real impact on the billionaire's day-to-day freedom. The world comes out ahead, freedom-wise.
Abortion would be a tricky issue if you remove right and wrong from the equation and focus on freedom instead. Society would need to compare the freedom that a woman would sacrifice by having an unwanted child, and the impact that would have on others as well, versus the potential freedom of the fetus. That sidesteps the question of when life begins. The starting point of life only matters if you are talking about the rights of the living. If you're talking about potential for freedom, a fetus of any age has it. Personally, I'm pro-choice, for purely practical reasons. If freedom were my top priority, would my opinion on abortion rights change?
A focus on freedom will skewer the sacred cows on both sides of the aisle. Conservatives might have to live with higher taxes on the rich, and liberals might lose their strongest argument for abortion rights.
How committed are we to this freedom thing?
November 7, 2012
Larry Page's Voice Update
In July I blogged about Google founder Larry Page's reported voice problem. I speculated that Page might have the same voice issue I had, called spasmodic dysphonia.
My reasoning was that spasmodic dysphonia is often - perhaps even usually - incorrectly diagnosed as a psychological problem. That was the only reason I could imagine for Google's silence on the specifics of his voice issues. If Page had any other kind of voice problem the company would have simply described it.
Today I did a Google search to see if there was an update. Page recently appeared in public and spoke in a way that will strike most listeners as unusual. His voice is breathy, weak, and quite different from his old voice that you can hear on this clip. The good news is that his voice is functional.
Page's new voice is identical to the sound of a patient with spasmodic dysphonia after getting Botox injections to the vocal cords to control involuntary spasms. I recognize the distinctive sound because I had that sort of treatment for about six months. I sounded exactly the same. And I can rule out the possibility that Page had throat surgery for spasmodic dysphonia because that would have left an obvious scar on the front of his neck.
Botox injections through the front of the neck to the vocal cords are the most common treatment for Spasmodic Dysphonia. The problem - and it's a huge one - is that the Botox is always ramping up or wearing off. Your voice is only good for a brief window in which the dose is at the just-right phase. Every few months you have to go in for a new shot, which is extraordinarily unpleasant if needles creep you out. It's an extra-thick needle that pushes through the front of the throat and - if the doctor is either skilled or lucky - finds the vocal cords one-at-a-time. In my case, I got a different result after every injection; sometimes it worked well, sometimes not. I later learned that one of my vocal cords is in an unusual position, which probably explains why my results were spotty.
I tried the Botox injections for several months before realizing it wasn't for me. I've heard it works well for some people. In the end, my solution was surgery with a doctor who invented the approach he used.
Obviously I'm only speculating about Page's voice condition. But I'll renew my offer to explain the surgery option to Larry if it turns out he has spasmodic dysphonia and is interested in alternatives. I can be reached at dilbertcartoonist@gmail.com.
My reasoning was that spasmodic dysphonia is often - perhaps even usually - incorrectly diagnosed as a psychological problem. That was the only reason I could imagine for Google's silence on the specifics of his voice issues. If Page had any other kind of voice problem the company would have simply described it.
Today I did a Google search to see if there was an update. Page recently appeared in public and spoke in a way that will strike most listeners as unusual. His voice is breathy, weak, and quite different from his old voice that you can hear on this clip. The good news is that his voice is functional.
Page's new voice is identical to the sound of a patient with spasmodic dysphonia after getting Botox injections to the vocal cords to control involuntary spasms. I recognize the distinctive sound because I had that sort of treatment for about six months. I sounded exactly the same. And I can rule out the possibility that Page had throat surgery for spasmodic dysphonia because that would have left an obvious scar on the front of his neck.
Botox injections through the front of the neck to the vocal cords are the most common treatment for Spasmodic Dysphonia. The problem - and it's a huge one - is that the Botox is always ramping up or wearing off. Your voice is only good for a brief window in which the dose is at the just-right phase. Every few months you have to go in for a new shot, which is extraordinarily unpleasant if needles creep you out. It's an extra-thick needle that pushes through the front of the throat and - if the doctor is either skilled or lucky - finds the vocal cords one-at-a-time. In my case, I got a different result after every injection; sometimes it worked well, sometimes not. I later learned that one of my vocal cords is in an unusual position, which probably explains why my results were spotty.
I tried the Botox injections for several months before realizing it wasn't for me. I've heard it works well for some people. In the end, my solution was surgery with a doctor who invented the approach he used.
Obviously I'm only speculating about Page's voice condition. But I'll renew my offer to explain the surgery option to Larry if it turns out he has spasmodic dysphonia and is interested in alternatives. I can be reached at dilbertcartoonist@gmail.com.
Scott Adams's Blog
- Scott Adams's profile
- 1258 followers
Scott Adams isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
